Opinion
E074024
07-14-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CALVIN EUGENE RICHMOND, Defendant and Appellant.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. 16CR064246) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kyle S. Brodie, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant and appellant Calvin Eugene Richmond guilty of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor trespass/refusing to leave private property (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (o); count 2). The jury found defendant not guilty of misdemeanor resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 69; count 3). The trial court subsequently placed defendant on formal probation for a period of three years on various terms and conditions of probation. The court also ordered defendant to serve 240 days in county jail, which was stayed pending successful completion of probation, pay a $300 restitution fine, $140 in court operations fees, and $2,157.13 in victim restitution.
Defendant appeals from the judgment. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising potential arguable issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Based on our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 30, 2016, Frank Fales was working as the operations manager for the Best Western Hotel in Rancho Cucamonga when he was informed by housekeeping staff that defendant had remained in his hotel room beyond the noon check out. Fales went to the room and knocked on the door to determine if defendant was going to leave or stay in the room for another night. Defendant told Fales that he was in the restroom and would get back to him later. Defendant never got back to Fales, so Fales returned to the hotel room five times to speak with defendant. Fales asked defendant to come down to the front desk each time. The third time, Fales requested that defendant open the hotel room door. Defendant responded that he was in the bathroom.
Having not heard back from defendant, Fales contacted law enforcement. San Bernardino County deputies arrived at the hotel at around 1:30 p.m. Upon arrival, Fales informed the deputies of the situation, gave the deputies defendant's name, and information on how many contacts Fales had with defendant. The deputies thereafter proceeded to defendant's hotel room and knocked on the door. Defendant told the deputies he was in the bathroom, had done nothing wrong, and to go away. After unsuccessfully trying to get defendant to open the hotel room door, Fales gave the deputies a key card to open the door. One of the deputies then opened the door with the key card, broke the latch, and pushed the door open. The deputies told defendant to get on the ground and defendant complied. The deputies then handcuffed defendant, removed defendant from the room, and placed him inside a patrol car.
While inside the patrol vehicle, defendant kicked out the rear window of the patrol car and shattered the window. The deputies approached and attempted to get defendant to exit the patrol car. Defendant was combative, moving from side to side, and kicking at the deputies. Eventually, defendant was removed from the patrol car by the deputies and placed inside a different patrol vehicle with his hands zip tied. Defendant was irritable and sarcastic. He also challenged the deputies to a fight.
Subsequently, Fales entered the hotel room defendant had occupied and found that it had been flooded. Fales did not see any of the deputies brutalizing defendant, pulling out weapons, tasing defendant, or verbally abusing defendant at any point. In addition, defendant did not appear to be injured, ill, or bleeding.
As a result of the window damage, the patrol vehicle was taken out of service for repairs. A service advisor for Ford handled the repairs to the sheriff's patrol vehicle. The service advisor noted that there was damage to the rear window, the door frame, and the interior latch. The repairs to the patrol vehicle totaled $2,157.13.
Defendant testified that he had checked into the hotel after midnight on May 30, 2016. As the noon check out time arrived, defendant claimed that he had intended on staying in the room for an extra day since it was a holiday. Thus, when the lady, Christine, at the hotel front desk contacted him, he made arrangements with Christine to stay another day. He then went back to sleep.
Later, the police started knocking on the door of the hotel room. Defendant told the officers he was in the bathroom and was trying to get dressed. At the time, defendant was handwashing his clothing and was trying to ring out the water so he could wear the clothes. The deputies pushed the hotel room door open and told defendant to sit down on the floor. Defendant had no idea "what was going on" and complied with the deputies' request. Thereafter, the deputies gave defendant clothing to wear, handcuffed him, removed him from the hotel room, and placed him in the back of a patrol vehicle. Three deputies were present.
Defendant claimed that he had to lie on the seat sideways as he was 6 feet 3 inches tall. He stated that after he was placed in the patrol car, a deputy turned on the heater inside of the vehicle. The heat caused defendant to feel very uncomfortable, and he began losing consciousness. Defendant yelled out to the deputies, but they did not respond. He then kicked out the window of the patrol car for ventilation. After he kicked out the window, the deputies ran back to the patrol car and tried to pull him out of the car feet first. Defendant resisted this attempt because there was broken glass on the seat and he did not want to be dragged against the broken glass. Defendant admitted that he did not feel mistreated by the deputies.
Defendant paid for the hotel room using a credit card. Defendant graduated from Virginia Tech and was honorably discharged from the military. In addition, defendant had no prior criminal record.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J. We concur: FIELDS
J. MENETREZ
J.